OPINION

Shopping for oil

Re: "Adding fuel to the fire", (Business, June 30).

Thailand's heavy dependence on Middle Eastern oil is a serious issue. Thailand should balance energy imports from multiple countries to prevent the impact of unpredictable geopolitical or political tensions, both now and in the future. The heavy reliance on oil imports from the Middle East causes higher oil prices for Thailand, which worsens the economy both directly and indirectly.

For example, an easy and simple case: when oil prices increase to a high point, citizens will tighten their expenses in this area by going out less and staying home. It makes the GDP worse. No one goes out, no money flows into businesses, and the economy slows down due to reduced money circulation.

Double standards

Re: "Same treatment for cruelty", (PostBag, June 29) & "Critique isn't hate", (PostBag, June 27).

In response to my June 27 letter about Israeli cruelty, James Debentures refers to the Hamas Oct 7 attack. He misses my point. You're not called anti-Muslim if you're critical of Hamas. But you are called anti-Jewish if you're critical of Israel. And it's because of that double standard that the rest of the world looks the other way when Israel commits one of the worst atrocities in modern history. And that's the point I was trying to make.

Liquor limits

Re: "Booze not a narcotic", (PostBag, July 2).

In choosing the technical medical definition of the term "narcotic", Jason A Jellison has misled himself, demonstrating that he is every bit as well informed on the debate surrounding the legal status of cannabis.

The relevant definition is surely that which is in fact provided by Thailand's Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On its website, the FDA specifies the following: "Narcotics mean any chemical, plant or substance which, upon being consumed, causes physiological or mental effect in a significant manner" (FDA website, May 22, 2023).

This definition comports with the Oxford English Dictionary's (OED's) second entry for the English word "narcotic", which dates from 1894 US legal usage, surely long enough ago for even an older gay man, American no less, like Mr Jellison to have heard of it. This definition of narcotic is: "A drug affecting mood or behaviour which is sold for non-medical purposes, esp one whose use is prohibited or under strict legal control but which tends nevertheless to be extensively used illegally. Frequently in plural" (OED, 2).

This explains why substances such as cocaine, a decidedly stimulating rather than narcotising plant product, are on the FDA list of controlled narcotics. It also explains why LSD and amphetamines, which have never been near any plant, or even yeast, are on the list, nor are these popular recreational drugs noted for "induc[ing] drowsiness, stupor, or insensibility," (OED, 1.a).

There is no good reason why so powerful a drug of addiction as alcohol could not be added to the FDA's list of controlled narcotics with the swipe of a ministerial pen, along with the various recreational drugs already there for questionable reasons but whose use is not personally enjoyed by Mr Jellison.